Five Reasons Noah’s Ark Did not Land on Mt. Ararat; Five Reasons Why It Did Land On Cudi Dagh by Bill Crouse Five Reasons Why Noah’s Ark Did Not Land on Mt. Ararat I was once was a strong advocate of Mt. Ararat/Agri Dagh as the landing place of Noah’s Ark. It was the highest mountain in the area and there seemed to be a plethora of astonishing eyewitness accounts from natives and World War II soldiers. I was so convinced that I made two trips to the spectacular mountain in the 80's and climbed to it’s summit. However, in the process of evaluating the evidence, I was puzzled by contradictory nature of the alleged eyewitnesses. This set me on a quest to evaluate the evidence from ancient history. These facts and other matters brought me to a complete change of mind where I had to reject the Mt. Ararat thesis for the five following reasons: The First Reason The Claim that Noah’s Ark landed on Mt. Ararat/Agri Dagh was fairly unknown in antiquity. The earliest known reference to that geographical site is from Philostorgius who wrote a history of the church in the first part of the fifth century.1 His twelve volume history has not survived, but Photius, a patriarch of Constantinople, summarized it in the ninth century. There 1Philostorgius, Epitome of the Ecclesiastical History of Philostorgius, Compiled by Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople. trans. Edward Walford (London: Henry G. Bohn, York Street, Covent Garden, MDCCCLV). Very little is known about Philostorgius (368-439 A.D.). He was born in Cappadocia and moved to Constantinople at twenty years of age. He was a known heretic and follower of Arius. Photius, who summarized his work, is not his admirer. Page 2 can be little doubt, however, that Philostorgius was referring to the 17,000 ft. Mt. Ararat. He says: The Euphrates, however, to all appearance, takes its rise among the Armenians; in this region stands the Mount of Ararat, so called even to the present day by Armenians,–the same mount on which the Holy Scripture says the ark rested. Many fragments of wood and nails of which the ark was composed are said to be still preserved in those localities..... 2 There are several things that are cause for puzzlement and wonder about this quote: (1)He does not give us a source, and if he did, Photius does not relate it; (2) the Holy Scripture, which he invokes, does not say the ark landed on a specific mountain as he claims; (3) Armenians, at least from literature we know, have never referred to that mountain by that name in antiquity; 3 (4) Faustus, the earliest Armenian historian, writing in the fourth century, in his account of Jacob of Nisibis’ quest for a piece of the ark, was clearly not referring to the Mt. Ararat of today; 4 (5)The reference to “fragments of wood,” and “nails” is curious. We do not know of any reference with these details from the fifth or before the fifth century. It is also interesting that he does not refer to an intact ark. Since there are no prior references, and none for several hundred years after Philostorgius, and given his penchant for strange ideas about geographical references, it is hard to give this fifth 2 Philostorgius, Book III, Chapter 8. 3 Fautus, from the fourth century, refers to Ararat as Masis. See: Nina G. Garsolian, The Epic Histories (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1989) , 96, Lazar P’arpec’i, writing in the late fifth century refers to Ararat as Masis. Robert W. Thompson, trans.The History of Lazar P’arpec’i (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1991), 178. Also, Moses Khorenats’i, the Armenian historian, refers to Masis many times; never as “Ararat.” Robert W. Thompson, trans. Moses Khorenats’i. History of the Armenians (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1978). See especially n12, p. 91. 4 Garsoian, The Epic Histories, 252-253. See n.3. Page 3 century reference much credence. 5 After Philostorgius we have no indisputable references to Ararat/Agri Dagh as the landing place until the twelfth century. According to Lloyd Bailey: “By the twelfth century, however, it is clear that many Armenians had come to assume that Faustus’ story was about an area near Agri Dagi.”6 He refers to a reference from the medieval encyclopedist, Vincent of Beauvais (ca.1184-1264). In this passage, Vincent is quoting an earlier encyclopedist, Isidore of Seville (ca. 560-636), who says: “Ararat is a mountain in Armenia, where historians testify that the ark came to rest after the flood. So even to this day wood remains of it are to be seen there.” 7 Vincent goes on then to identify the “Ararat” of Isidore with Mt. Ararat/Agri Dagh and the traditions noted earlier by Faustus. This I think, is an unwarranted projection as Cudi Dagh has also been referred to as “Mt. Ararat.”8 However, it is safe to say that by this time, the twelfth to the thirteenth centuries, the traditions surrounding the landing of Noah’s Ark have traveled north to Mt. Ararat/Agri Dagh. When Marco Polo traveled past Mt. Ararat on his way to China in the thirteenth century he wrote in his account of his travels: In the heart of Greater Armenia is a very high mountain, shaped like a cube, on which Noah’s ark is said to have rested, whence it is called the Mountain of Noah’s Ark. It is so broad and long that it takes more than two days to go around it. On the summit the snow lies so deep all the year round that no one can ever climb it; this snow never entirely 5 In the biographical notice of Philostorgius his translator says : “ (H)e has inserted in his narrative many curious geographical and other details about remote and unknown countries.... He was rather inclined to credulity...” Edward Walford. 6 Lloyd R. Bailey, Noah (Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1989) , 77-78. We do not agree with Bailey’s conclusion that Vincent was referring to Mt. Aragats. While it is a mountain in Armenia, it is to the north of Ararat and not on the Araxis River. 7John Warwick Montgomery, The Quest of Noah’s Ark 2nd ed, revised and enlarged (Minneapolis, MN: Dimension Books, 1974), 79-80. 8Faustus clearly identifies Mt. Ararat as a mountain in the canton of Korduk. Garsoian, Epic Histories, 77. Page 4 melts, but new snow is for ever falling on the old.9 The modern search for Noah’s Ark on Mt. Ararat/Agri Dagh began in 1948 when an American responded to accounts of a “ship-like” object high on the slopes of Ararat.10 The search for Noah’s Ark on Ararat has been chronicled in several books. 11 In summary, the first reason why I reject Mt. Ararat/Agri Dagh is that it has inadequate testimony from antiquity. The name Mt. Ararat is a rather late appellation. This area south of the Araxis River in antiquity was known as the “canton of Airarat/Ararat.” It seems obvious that the name of the district was at some point transferred to the spectacular mountain.12 In recent times, many read Genesis 8:4 and incorrectly assume it refers to this singular mountain. Given that it is the highest mountain in the region adds to that conclusion. The Second Reason A second reason I reject Ararat/Agri Dagh as the landing place of the ark is for geological reasons. Ararat is a complex volcano without any definitive evidence of ever having been submerged under water. Fossiliferous rocks are nowhere to be found, though they are abundant 9 Robert Latham, ed and trans. Marco Polo, The Travels (London: The Folio Society, 1968) , 34. Not sure how Marco Polo got a cube out of a cone! 10 Violet Cummings, Has anybody Really seen Noah’s Ark? (San Diego, CA: Creation-Science Research Center, 1982), 6. See also this account: A.J. Smith, On the Mountains of Ararat: The Quest of Noah’s Ark (Apollo, PA: West Publishing Company, 1950). Smith’s account of the mysterious local named “Reshit” has all the earmarks of a tabloid story. 11Violet M. Cummings, Noah’s Ark Fact or Fable? (San Diego, CA: Creation-Science Research Center, 1972); Tim LaHaye and John Morris, The Ark On Ararat (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, Inc. Publishers, 1976); John Warwick Montgomery, The Quest for Noah’s ark, 2nd ed. (Minneapolis, MN: Dimension Books, 1974); Violet Cummings, Has Anybody Really Seen Noah’s Ark (San Diego, CA: Creation-Life Publishers, 1982). 12Bailey, Noah, 78. Page 5 in the hills surrounding the mountain. All this would lead one to believe that the mountain was formed after the deluge. It is often claimed that there is sedimentation found on the mountain but it can easily be shown that this layering is the result of volcanic and not from alluvial action? Another claim is the presence of pillow lava, however, if it can be shown that it is indeed pillow lava, it need not be formed exclusively from extrusion under water, but can be formed from ice and snow. Those advocating this mountain as the landing place often cite the fact that the ark’s preservation is due to it’s being encased in ice for millennia. This is certainly within the realm of possibility as we know from other renown discoveries. Whole forests have been preserved and a man’s body has been preserved in a glacier in Switzerland.